Intel Celeron 550 2.0Ghz vs Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz

What is the performance difference between the Intel Celeron 550 2.0Ghz and the Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz?

I generally only use my computer for spreadsheets, word processing, light gaming and web site design.

Thanks,

Lee.

 

It's the difference between night and day. A Celeron M is a single core, crippled processor, while a Core 2 Duo is a dual core, cutting edge one.

 

The difference if processor power is huge, but there is a lot that affects how "fast" a computer is that goes way beyond processor.

 

Well technically, the C2D is two of the celerons in one, plus some extra L2-cache. That can give up to a 100% increase in processing power, if the application is multithreaded. You actually would be fine with the celeron, But go for a C2D. Even a slower one.

 

If the price difference is within budget, certainly go for the Core 2 Duo. For single-threaded applications the Celeron should deliver similar performance to the Core 2 Duo, but still slightly less as the Core 2 has extra cache and can put background tasks on the second processor. For dual-threaded applications (which still isn't very many), the Core 2 Duo would nearly double performance.

A 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo would probably still deliver equal performance to the Celeron in single-threaded applications, even 1.6 should deliver near-equal performance with Dynamic Acceleration (which effectively makes it a 1.8 GHz processor in single-threaded applications), but below that you'd probably start seeing better performance with the Celeron in single-threaded applications.

 

I would go with even a low power C2D if you can afford it. A C2D will get better battery life.

 

What's the difference in price?

While Celerons these days aren't lacking in power (the 550 is the same cpu core as the core 2 duo) they do lack advanced features like Speedstepping (most importantly) which allows them to clock down when they're idle to use less battery power and produce less heat. The Celeron is single core as well, so lacks the advanced multitasking ability.

Considering your needs, I'd say the Celeron is powerful enough, but speaking as a Celeron-M owner the lack of speedstep can be annoying.

I'd be tempted to look for a low end Core 2 Duo or Pentium Dual Core, that would give you the best felxibility whilst not being overly expensive for your needs.

 

It's an extra £40 to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo 1.4Ghz.
It's an extra £70 to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo 1.6Ghz.
It's an extra £110 to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz.

Some great replies. Thanks.

Lee.

 

Lee,

I would suggest you go in for C2D 1.4 Ghz since its just extra 40 bucks from your kitty. This would keep you satisfied that you have a real mobile processor and also give you enough power to operate on other applications.

Thanks,

 

I'd agree with the above, an extra £40 on the T5270 would probably be worth it.

 

Sounds like it's worth dropping to 1.4 in Ghz and having the Core 2 Duo. Rather than a 2Ghz Celeron.

Thanks,

Lee.

 

The other compnents in your laptop will thank you for that!

 

I see. Will the peformance de roughly the same in day to day Windows and office, internet, e-mail usage?

Ta,

Lee.

 

Yeah, it should be. It's hard to notice it when you don't have anything to compare it to, but using my C2D and the Celeron in my EEE I notice the vastly superior performance of the C2D. I say buy it and ask questions later .

 

My current desktop has a Athlon XP2000 1.6Ghz. How much better would the T5270 perform?

Thanks,

Lee.

 

That's really hard to say. Expect far better peformance. Like 10 times better? =|

 

Ok. Thanks for your time

Lee.

 

Well I guess I can be one of the test subjects here!
I have a 1.6ghz Celeron M "520" in my laptop. I just bought off ebay a duo-core 2 - 1.6ghz M processor.

It should be in my mailbox tomorrow or Monday. I will report my results back!

 

That's a pretty ropey comparison, you're comparing a Celeron-M 353 which is 3 year old technology and designed for low power machines to a current dual core mainstream cpu with double the clock speed, fsb and cache. Of COURSE the C2D is faster!

 

Athlon xp vs 1,4 Ghz C2d highly unlikely that it is ten times better i would say highest 4 times and since i already made something about celeron discussed.


celeron vs c2d about 3-4 times performance

Celeron has less cache, mainly cheaper components slower FSB and lacking the second core. This should be enough for any mind with some proper knowledge to know that it is about two very different types of products and audiences.

It is comparing a über budget processor to a high performance CPU.

 

Go for a T2330 or T2310 processor...it's a "core 2 duo" at heart with a 533/1 MB cache and it's VERY inexpensive!! best of both worlds, just a notch under a full speed C2D but light years ahead of the celeron in multi tasking and games designed for Dual core.

 

w/o even looking at the previous posts in this forum, i already know that the core 2 duo will win hands down. celeron M is no competition

 

I think thats a no brainer here. My Celeron is like a vintage pinto with a 2.3 N/A 4 cylinder engine, 3 speed auto trans.

A duo core is like a brand new Dodge Charger Hemi R/T

Hows that for analogy?

 

Ah. I don't know much about comparisons, I guess. I kept thinking for no reason that the Celeron inside the EEE was a 5xx series. Now I know better .

 

Don't say "like a Dodge", your laptop will be on a lift in a month...sorry, i owned a few...
My related question is if Intel keeps upping the cache on the core duo...why doesnt AMD up the turion 64x2 cache? Or is it sufficient enough with it's 512x2 cache? I like both chip manufacturers, would use either one.....

 

well, while most (well, i probably shouldn't say that but) core 2 duos have 2MB L2 cache in comparison w/ AMD's 1MB, most (once again, probably shouldn't say that but) turions have 256kb L1 cache in comparison w/ intel's 64kb. perhaps that makes up for the difference? i'm not an expert on processors, but i do know that when comparing a turion to a core 2 duo, L2 cache probably isn't the thing to focus on...

 

Intel uses massive amounts of cache to make up for the lack of On-board memory controller. And the K8-architecture doesn't need massive amounts of cache. Or something like that.

 

Interesting....
So the turion is still a viable option. I do like how it has on board memory....
thanks

 

Intel is still faster though... A 1,5GHz C2D≥1,9GHz Turion X2

 

Interesting, that's kind of what i hear...but aren't both fairly reliable? I hear the turion is real reliable....

 

What do you mean by reliable?

 

something that does it's job for long time without trouble....like a toyota.

 

All processors are pretty reliable. As long as the fan on the laptop doesn't break, or you're OCing it, they last a long time.

 

As to the question of why AMD does not up the L2 on Turions. I doubt it is just because they don't need it. The onboard memory controller takes up space where space is very limited. So it is more likely an engineering issue. Can't do it at this point. Maybe the next line.

Fab's Core 2 comparison vs Turion 1.5= 1.9 sounds accurate but remember the turions really came out vs Core Duo. AMD is tiny compared to Intel, simply cannot compete with Intels R&D at least in frequency of updates and new releases.

 

Well, a Celeron is a single core, but even lower than a Pentium single core, a Core 2 is the best you can get, its two good processors.

 

I'd say a Turion is a viable option, sure. You might get less battery life with it but it'll be cheaper to buy. When compared to PDCs (pentium DUal Core, like the T2310) Turions are about clock for clock.

 

Aren't Turions a bit hotter than their Intel C2D counterparts? Or so I've read...

 

They can be... I think it depends on the individual laptop.

 

The T2310 is a Core 2 Duo at 533/1 MB cache and runs 64 bit programs. It runs about 1.5% slower than the T5250 Core 2 Duo at 1.5 Ghz compared to the T2310 at 1.46 GHZ.

Please the T2310 even though labeled a "Dual Core" is a CORE 2 DUO at heart !!!!
It is Merom core....not the Yonah.

I have not seen "professional test" comparing the Turion and the T2310, but I would assume battery life and speed would be to the advantage of the T2310 based on what i have read and seen.

 

Merom Core or not, it's a Pentium Dual Core. Does a Merom core make a Celeron-M 500 a Core 2? Not even close.

Tests have shown 1.5GHz Core 2 Duo (SR) roughly = 1.9GHz Turion. Bearing in mind that Desktop PDC=65nm Athlon X2 clock for clock, it seems likely that PDC (mobile) roughly = Turion X2 (65nm) so one of the newer Turions might be faster.

 

It's a Core 2 Duo clocked at 533 with 1MB Cache.....I know they call it a "Dual Core" because it is basically a C2D that did not make the "cut", but for all intensive purposes it IS a C2D......

All CPU programs recognize it as a C2D....also, look at the test scores on Intel's site. It blows away the yonah based "Dual Core" chips.

Test scores the same as the T5250 (with in 1.5%) Where as a "Dual core ...Yonah" is about 1/2 the score....Celeron is not a X2 chip so the analogy is poor.

Ok, lets agree on this...it's a C2D with a slight case of depression making if 1.5% less productive and mis-labeled as Schizophrenic ....

Nah, I'm just messing with you.

 

Dude, I would suggest onething, kinda if you do not want to be always plugged in, please go in for C2D 1.46 Ghz but if you do not mind plugged in or if you wouldnt keep the laptop on your lap or any part of your body (J/K)! please go in for turion which is a much cheaper option.

Btw what is the price diff. between a C2D 1.46 and a Turion 1.8 (or heigher)? am sorry i am not able to get competitive prices here in germany.

For me, a duo core laptop with 2 gigs of RAM costs me less than 600 EUR (599 eur to be precise), the same with C2D costs me 750 EUR and as for the celeron counter part i can get for somethin less than 450 bucks.

A turion costs inline with Duo core here.

Give me your input, so that i can suggest somethin for you? are you in particular looking for some vendor? specific? kinda HP, Levono etc.,

 

The saying is "for all intents and purposes".

 

See, if it were a "true" C2D It would have corrected it for me....

 

I think we've got off topic here, but, if it was Core 2 Duo, it would be called a Core 2 Duo. It is not a Core 2 Duo, it's a Merom based Pentium Dual Core.

Fin.

 

It's marketed as a "dual core" and marketed only.Just because Intel calls it a "Dual Core" does not make it a "Dual Core". Everything about it is a C2D...PERIOD. Go into every single CPU program and it's listed as a C2D, called a C2D and runs at the SAME speeds, clocks and instructions as a C2D.

It's marking to get rid of a bunch of chips that did not quite make the C2D cut at higher speeds.

I know we are splitting hairs, but to get back to the main point, since this chipset is about the same price as a celeron, I'd go with the T2310 because it performs like a C2D and for future apps I'd go X2.....could we agree on that?

I guess it's the same with the Turion Vs. the Mobile Athlon...the Athlon is basically an overclocked Turion with less cache...however, everthing else about it is the same.

It's marketed as a "Dual Core"....key word Marketed....

I agree, let's move on.....

 

Yeah way to move on there.

POint is, calling it a Core 2 Duo is misleading, because it doesn't have that kind of performance. Hence, the different name.

 

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=199275

I guess it's all in the "eye of the beholder".

 

Or in the eyes of Intel:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLA4K
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Details.aspx?sSpec=SLAEC

They're the ones who make the chips, I'll just go by what they say.

 

Compare this to the links above....amazingly close:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLV3W

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLA4E


Thanks for the links. I guess in a sense we are both right....it is a "Dual Core" but it's also a "C2D" at heart. The scores prove it.

Anyway, you are correct, I guess if Intel calls it a "Dual Core" then so be it. All I was trying to get across, is this is not your "typical" Pentium Dual Core chip that we have been used to seeing in the past. Sorry, but I thought they were inefficient compared to the Turions and C2D's.

I used to have the TK-53 Processor and that Laptop had the wireless issue that they could not fix. Then Compaq offered this unit...I saw "Dual Core" and nearly passed it up until I did some research and realized that this is not the "Dual Core" of old......so that's what I was trying to convey. It's a fast chip, efficient and only about 1%-2% slower than the C2D chips of comparable speeds.

Thanks for the "debate"...I learned a lot. Take care and I'm sure we'll run into each other again...Thanks...